Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3d 382
Three days later, appellant and the confidential informant met again, and
walked to the same convenience store. Appellant then walked to Aponte's
apartment and returned with Aponte 25 minutes later. Aponte and appellant
entered a vehicle, where the confidential informant had been waiting, and
Aponte handed the confidential informant 18.8 grams of cocaine base of 69%
purity in exchange for $1000. Upon completing the purchase, appellant and the
confidential informant drove to the appellant's apartment, where the
confidential informant dropped off the appellant.
Appellant's sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in failing to
give him a downward adjustment for his role in the offense. Appellant claims
that his limited role in the crack-cocaine sale compared to the others entitled
him to a three or four level downward adjustment for minimal participation
under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(a), or at least a two level downward adjustment for
minor participation under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b).
In this typical street-level drug transaction, where the appellant clearly and
admittedly has acted as a "steerer," the district court was fully justified in
finding that the participation is not "minimal," and to refuse a downward
adjustment under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(a).
10
Because the district court failed to inquire beyond appellant's role as a "steerer"
in applying U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b), we must vacate Neils's sentence and remand
the case to the district court for resentencing.